In the news

loads of people have ridden brakless today and not killed anyone. the same thing happened yesterday.

Inductive/deductive fallacy risk

Just......

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-asked-cyclist-pay-damage-hit-run-arrested-running-car-passenger-347598

This. But possibly for not much longer? Every item of news following this desperately sad case has made me so depressed - mainly about the death of Kim Briggs but also the way one idiot seems to have opened the floodgates for so much media negativity towards cyclists (like we needed that) and the legal consequences that may now ensue.

We all know that 90% of Peds are on the phone/music and so think that there is an invisible force-field around them. Many seem to believe that this gives them the ability to just walk into the road - we've all had them step out in front of us.

Unfortunately that means that we can reasonably expect it to happen, and so (under law) have a "Duty of care" to such air-heads ! Hence, riding in a way that you cannot stop when a foreseeable event happens is reckless IMHO.

He should have ridden at a safe speed, given his lack of brakes !?

PS, this is a legal perspective, not my emotional one ;-)

Ah, i didnt know that!

Neither do the suicidal pedestrians in Belfast city centre ;)

I'm not sure criminalisation is the way to go, they've a "respect everyone's journey" campaign here.

It is just nicer to go places if we all are mindful of each other.

"respect everyone's journey"

Soooo sensible, the world is not ready for that

Re the poster, I think it's fair to ask "when does warning people becoming indirect victim blaming?"

Not sure.

But there is only so much you can do too, braking distances are non negotiable. No doubt some body has done research on what is the best policy and perhaps such posters are not.

Just thinkin. Did the cps bring manslaughter expecting to lose but making it more likely that wanton and furious would stick? Is that the game?

Haha no!

"Assume everyone is a blind (Edit as I'm not watching where they are going, at all, just going...can remove I tend to edit not delete posts)idiot and YES that includes you too!!" is more realistic ATM :p

Like blasphemy laws :/

Almost definitely.

"Mum I got a girl pregnant. Just joking but really I failed math."

Or

"I want a motorbike, but I will settle for a car"

Did someone post the Huck piece on bikestormz kids at Grenfell in this thread? I like Huck generally and this is a pretty good piece, but they got the Critical Mass comparison wrong I think... CM is exactly about saying "we exist too" and not about bike lanes etc, isn't it? Differences in other ways.
http://www.huckmagazine.com/ride/bikes/bikestormz-movement-cycling-bikelife-survival-london/

Serial tho, for the 'pro no brakes' guys. Why, not?

Whats the reason for no brake on the bike, honestly.

Why are you even asking?
Do you want to be convinced?
Do you want someone else to be convinced?

Or do you just want to tell someone how stupid they are and how you're the better person because you obey the law?

Edit: that reads quite aggressively, sorry. I just don't see much value in having that discussion, now or ever.

Some of this discussion of 'pedestrians' and 'their' bad habits is just as risible as the media's talk of cars being involved in accidents without reference to their drivers.

That us and them mentality is exactly what allows all of this media hysteria to be whipped up.

And it's exactly the attitude that turned so many people against this young bell when they read his initial comments, when he seemed to see another human (albeit one who got in a mixup and shouldn't have stepped out in front of him) as an annoying obstacle in his way.

We're all cunts.

New page fail. Well said @tommmmmmm

Wouldn't they be better off protecting pedestrians by speaking about the dangers of walking onto the road while looking at your phone?

No. they should protect pedestrians by making cities safer to walk about in. Our urban spaces should not be ruled by fast moving vehicles and made impassable by roundabouts and junctions. Peds should have priority.

Unfortunately that means that we can reasonably expect it to happen, and so (under law) have a "Duty of care" to such air-heads ! Hence, riding in a way that you cannot stop when a foreseeable event happens is reckless IMHO.

He should have ridden at a safe speed, given his lack of brakes !?

You hit the nail on the head. We have a duty of care to air heads, i.e, normal people walking about. Vehicles are less important than people.

The police 'stopping distance' video is so contrived that I expect even the jury saw through it, especially if there were cyclists among them. I think the police/CPS made the decision to prosecute on the fact of his bike being brakeless=illegal and also on evidence of his online comments showing him to be unsympathetic. The police/CPS saw this as a 'winnable' case even though Charlie's comments were made before he realised the serious outcome of Kim Briggs' injury.
In a fairer world the expert evidence would recognize that brakes and stopping distance are not the crucial issue. Experienced bike and motorcycle riders know that emergency collision avoidance most often requires aiming for the gaps rather than jamming on brakes and crashing. We learn that pedestrians can step out at any time, the worst case is when they take 3 steps out, see you, then take 1 step back just as you have turned to go behind them. We learn to anticipate this 'dance of death' and that the only way to avoid such crashes is to expect them whenever pedestrians are about and ride way out from the pavement or go slower if there is less space. Charlie A is paying for his lack of experience.

+1

Jack Bobridge's new career isn't going well:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jack-bobridge-charged-with-selling-mdma/

I have been training the GF, somewhat assertively, with cycling this past week or two. Although she always had a city bike, now that we are riding together on the road with road bikes I am really drilling home that safety is paramount.

She is terrible for lapses of concentration, thinking about food or whatever, at zero mph turning into my path etc.

Even while she is driving I was pointing out these dangers, and she is slowly coming to terms with that a dog will always cross your path, and a car door will always open in your path, pedestrians will move first and look later and so on.

The reality is most of us that treat this knowledge as granted, do so from experience or tuition.

When was the last generation that was taught cycling proficiency? (I learnt that 25 years ago now!)

Track riders know when there's a crash go up, cos people fall down to the côte d'azure. Road riders know that the first two meters from the pavement/parked vehicle is the danger zone.

When was the last generation that was taught cycling proficiency? (I learnt that 25 years ago now!)

Some bikeability training that friends teach and other friends' children have been through cover all the things you've mentioned there. But its not mandatory, you have to sign up for it. Seems most councils ive heard that offer it pay for it so for school children (maybe also adults) its free

Edit: this is in London I'm talking about.
I've also noticed that different councils use different companies to offer training and its surprising how different their methods are and what they teach

Jesus wept, left a comment, awaiting the rage!

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/25/police-footage-proves-cyclist-charlie-alliston-would-have-stopped-before-killing-mother-of-two-6877249/

What a bizarre headline when they actually proved that he couldn't. The Police experiment has a known braking point and thus reaction time hasn't been taken into account.

Fuck journalists. Fuck their lies.